Insky v. Chatkoff

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Insky v. Chatkoff

84 N.Y.S. 253

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 22, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 253 (Insky v. Chatkoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Insky v. Chatkoff, 84 N.Y.S. 253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

The record in the case reads as follows, viz.:

“The case here closed, and said justice thereupon, to wit, on the 5th day of March, 1903, rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and subsequently, upon motion to resettle, the same was vacated, and judgment granted in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant for $23.25, and $2 costs.”

The court, under the conditions set forth in section 254 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1563, c. 580), has the power to vacate a judgment and grant a new trial, but there is no authority given to the court to vacate a judgment in favor of one party and give a judgment in favor of the other party.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GILDERSLEEVE, J.

The record in the case reads as follows, viz.:

“The case here closed, and said justice thereupon, to wit, on the 5th day of March, 1903, rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, and subsequently, upon motion to resettle, the same was vacated, and judgment granted in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant for $23.25, and $2 costs.”

The court, under the conditions set forth in section 254 of the municipal court act (Laws 1902, p. 1563, c. 580), has the power to vacate a judgment and grant a new trial, but there is no authority given to the court to vacate a judgment in favor of one party and give a judgment in favor of the other party.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/insky-v-chatkoff-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack